An unlikely convert to the cause of Scottish independence

Scotland, England and Wales have been in a Union for 400 years, with Ireland joining and then leaving again without Northern Ireland during that time. Now, we are faced with two questions: Should Scotland leave the Union? And indeed, should Scotland even be allowed to leave the Union?

Second question first, naturally. Yes it should be allowed to. All peoples should have the right of self-determination. Obviously this is pretty difficult in some cases - look at Israel. Israel is made up mostly of Israelis, but it also contains loads of Palestinians, so it's very difficult to decide who should rule which bits. How do you decide which bits of a country to treat differently in a referendum? You can always just let everyone vote and then different areas get to go to whichever country they voted for in greater numbers (see the Schleswig plebiscites) but would the rest of Scotland want to be an independent country without, say, Edinburgh? Luckily for Scotland, it is a nation. Most people in Scotland consider themselves Scottish, some also consider themselves British. It is not, luckily, a Yugoslavia style confusing mix. Therefore, an independent Scotland would basically be a nation-state, which is a fairly recent phenomenon but nonetheless seems a fairly reasonable basis for a country. As such, a referendum in in Scotland would be a simple matter of either the whole country staying in the Union, or the whole country leaving. Hopefully.

You can get as many lawyers to look at it as you like, but I think this is a pretty clear cut case of a nation of people who deserve the right to become a state.

So now, secondly, the first question: Should Scotland leave the Union? Well, that's complicated. Firstly, let's assess the situation with sentimentality taken out of the equation. Would Scotland be viable as a state? Yes, certainly it would. If you're worried about it's size then Ireland has a smaller population and they're doing ok..... Well, maybe Ireland is a bit screwed but that's because of economic mismanagement not because they're small. And yes, I'm sure Alex Salmond is perfectly capable of mismanaging the economy but that's a reason not to vote SNP, it isn't a reason to be against independence.

How about more practical considerations: currency, border controls, foreign policy? Well, actually, Alex Salmond's view of an independent Scotland would make all of that pretty easy. Crossing the border would be just as easy as it is today, they would still have the same currency, and we wouldn't have to move any armed forces about (or any members of the Royal Family, come to that). Basically, Salmond simply believes that Scots themselves should have the power to collect and spend taxation from Scotland, in Scotland, as they themselves see fit. Bailing out the banks is often used as an example in discussions on independence, because Scotland would not have been able to bail out RBS alone. This is true, but these banks have massive UK interests, and Scotland would be a full member of the EU. As such, I don't think there is a huge amount to worry about on that issue.

If we take into account tradition, then we would look at the fact that the Union dates back 400 years. Tradition is worth maintaining for the sake of tradition, but only when there is not a better option. When I started writing this post, I believed that I would come to the conclusion that whilst Scots should be allowed to hold a binding referendum, they should vote no to leaving the Union. Actually, I have come to a very different conclusion. For as long as the rest of the UK and Scotland can forever be the best of international friends; for as long as the independence does not throw up new problems of currency and borders; and as long as the transition is slow (as Alex Salmond wants) rather than abrupt (for logistical reasons), I support it.

Though I am genealogically English, I spend most of the year in Wales. I enthusiastically consider myself British, and I value the country I live in as Britain. However, I think that Scotland has much to gain from greater autonomy, and if that means being a separate sovereign state, then go for it. I support Scottish independence.

The best republican candidate? Barack Obama

I have one candidate left to analyse, and then I compare them all. I reach a surprising conclusion...

Jon Huntsman is the last candidate I am analysing. He did not fight the Iowa caucas, but will be fighting New Hampshire. He is easily the most electable of all the candidates - by which I mean the best placed to win the actual election, not the primaries. He doesn't have many stupid ideas, and he would probably be a safe pair of hands. This is not to say that he would do nothing - and he has even stated that he favours some kind of healthcare system (not as good as "Obamacare" but not far off). On social issues, he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, but not as vociferously as most of his peers. He is a diplomat, but he is also a businessman, and as such he combines an approach that accommodates working with everyone with some actual experience on job-creation. His economic policy does favour the rich (he's a Republican with a billionnaire dad, you can't expect miracles) but he has promised to close tax loopholes, which is important.

The way Huntsman really stands out from his peers is that he has a track record in actually making progress (not least as ambassador to China) and an outlook that allows for cooperation with the other side. It's quite easy to picture Huntsman in the White House, and everything we know about him suggests he would be a fairly average president, possibly even quite a good one with all his foreign policy experience. Therefore, if you're going to support a republican, then support Huntsman.

However, why not look at the alternative? Barack Obama. A man who envisages your country as one where everyone is born equal, one where the poor can fall ill and get to see a doctor, one where your country works in the world as a mediator but without pointing guns around and making things worse. I cannot understand why any of this would fail to appeal. Obama's vision isn't about removing your American dream (where anyone can make it big) and replacing it with communism (or some other word that conjures negative images in your minds that aren't anything to do with the meaning of the word). On the contrary, he epitomises the said American dream.

Being a republican isn't supposed to be about taking important decisions away from women whilst also taking away everything in the state except that which benefits the very rich. It is supposed to be about allowing individuals to have as much freedom as possible, without letting anyone fall too far behind. The social security provision isn't only moral, it is an economic necessity. We must allow everyone in the world to have access to healthcare, or we run the risk of some little child who would one day grow up to be a great leader, or solve a great problem, dying before they get the chance. If you look at the infant mortality rates in the USA then you can imagine just how many of those little children would have been able to make a positive contribution if given the chance. The same is true of education, and other aspects of welfare. You need social security in order to maximise economic output - it isn't wishy washy liberalism, it's cold hard economics. The liberalism bit is nice too though, if you really think about it.

The thing is, the candidates all go against the very foundations of republicanism. They are trying to remove personal freedoms: choices women make, freedom of association. At the same time, they are proponents of economic policies which fail to maximise the productive potential of your economy. In fact, if you look at Barack Obama's record, it is clear that he is the candidate in this race who combines the greatest personal freedoms with the soundest economic policy.

If the Republicans nominate Huntsman, then Obama should be worried, because Huntsman is electable. If America elects Huntsman, America would do fine, but not excel. If the Republicans nominate someone like Rick Santorum, then America should be very careful not to elect him, because the consequences would be bad for true republicanism, and bad for Americans. So actually, if you are a true republican (as opposed to someone who just has a gun fetish) your best candidate is Barack Obama.

Republican Nomination - Santorum, Paul, and Perry. The dangerous group.

If you are an American, please don't vote for any of these. They really would all do you great harm. Here's why:

Ron Paul is unfortunately a hypocrite, so I have no time for him. His economic policy is interesting and well thought out, and therefore worth listening to. Sadly, after listening to it, I think that it is wrong. Ron Paul is a libertarian, and wants to get rid of almost all federal taxes, and almost all federal expenditure. He wants there to be no redistribution of income. Redistribution of income is a goal every government should have. For one thing, it promotes equality - every child should get a good and preferably equal start in life. Children should not be defined by their parents' pay-packets. As a wealthy man, Ron Paul disagrees. For another, it is actually proven to be better for the economy in the long term because it promotes a meritocracy where the best people for the jobs get the jobs, not just the ones that could afford to go to college. His libertarianism does not extend to civil liberties. Like Bachmann, almost the only thing he would give the state control of is a woman's uterus. According to Paul's website, as an obstetrician he never once found abortion necessary to save a woman's life. That may be, but that does not mean that it is never necessary and statements like that are thus what make this man truly dangerous. He does nominally support gay marriage, in that he doesn't think government should define marriage - although he's quite happy for individual states to define it. He has however said that gay people should make sure not to impose themselves on other people and not to be disruptive. Clearly he has trouble reconciling his libertarian principles with his septuagenarian homophobia. All these three are homophobic, so this may crop up quite a bit in this post.

Ron Paul once said of Rick Perry in relation to the latter's threat of violence towards the chairman of the Federal Reserve "he makes me look like a moderate." It is so very true. Rick Perry is a reactionary politician. He looks at what the far right wingers that elect him are saying, and just goes with it. This means he is anti-gay (he actually supported homosexuality being illegal, and his recent youtibe videos show his position has not altered), he doesn't believe in proportional taxation, or social security, or climate change. He wants a federal ban on abortion. Rick Perry is a dark mark on the realm of politics and you should oust him from the race as soon as you can.

Rick Santorum is, annoyingly, a frontrunner at the moment. He is a bit gun crazy. Not only does he want everyone in the US to be allowed loads and loads of guns, he also wants the US to be the world's policeman. For many Americans, these sound great, but I would caution that guns can sometimes facilitate death and even war. In fact, they're very good at it. I don't think any one country should be allowed to go around the world deciding what is right and what isn't. And looking at his other political views (which are surprisingly few, he's pretty much all about the bombing and guns) if I was going to trust one country, it wouldn't be one led by him.

These three are pretty much basket-cases I'm afraid. They all have silly views on topics such as abortion and gay people, and declare libertarian principles whilst at the same time stopping people from making choices about their own bodies and their own human associations. They all also have unworkable foreign policies, Ron Paul is too isolationist, so is Santorum economically (although he is a fan of invasion), and Perry is far too reactionary to be put in control of a nuclear-armed country. They are all frightening, and all doing far too well for my comfort. They are so far to the right that they have lost all sense of perspective on many issues.

Republican Nomination - Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney

I'm continuing my analysis of the Republican candidates with Romney and Gingrich. I'll go on to Santorum, Perry, and Paul, then conclude with Huntsman.

These three I have decided to group together as the "definitely incorrect but not actually total crackpots" grouping. They all have an annoying tendency to say that they think a matter should be up to individual states to decide themselves whenever an issue becomes difficult for them, but none of them have done anything that makes me genuinely question their mental faculties (and even that wouldn't necessarily make them completely unqualified for President. As happened with Bush and Cheney, as long as your vice-president is clever (albeit in this case evil) the world just about survives the ordeal).

Gingrich first. His website shows a lot about him. It is basically all about reducing taxes, with surprisingly little mention of the reduction in government spending that this would require. Perhaps he doesn't want to make it too easy for us to infer that his economic policies will lead to a reduction in AD and hence in economic output, just like Bachmann's would. He does actually state some views I agree with, and he actually accepts that renewable energy might be worth looking into. However, it is his ridiculously fierce opposition to "Obamacare" that puts him alongside Romney, instead of alongside Huntsman. He thinks it's anti-jobs, which it isn't. The NHS is the third biggest employer in the world, not that "Obamacare" is even half as good as the NHS though. The USA needs to get universally free healthcare soon, it doesn't take too long looking at infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. to realise that everyone else has actually got it right and the USA has got it wrong. Still, at least now that Gingrich owns "newt.org" Ken Livingstone can't.

Next, Romney. Romney actually started out as a nice Republican - he even used to be a fan of gay rights. Not any more! He says "the older I get, the smarter Ronald Reagan gets." I'm not a fan of Romney, but he's grouped here because I suspect that some of this is just maneuvering to try to appeal to the Republican base. My hope is that his actual views are a little more sane than those of Reagan, as would be suggested by his website, which gives a vaguely coherent economic plan. His position is of free trade (with the exception of China... obviously) and he wants to encourage the private sector, which is no bad thing - and his spending cuts shouldn't be as horrific as other candidates'.

Republican Nomination - Michele Bachmann

Any Americans out there? Let's assess who you should support for the Rebublican nomination, if anyone.

Michele Bachmann is up first. She isn't going to be President. If you support the Republicans then you should hope she doesn't get the nomination and if you're a Democrat then you need to start canvassing support for her in the primaries because she would lose in the actual election. Why? The gaffes. She's made many and she'll make more. For some reason the media love gaffes and so they can matter more than substance. It's just as well though, because her substance is "restore our economy and create millions of new jobs, repeal Obamacare and its unconstitutional mandates, achieve deep spending cuts to reduce America's debt, strengthen the family and defend marriage, and rebuild respect for America as the shining city upon a hill." "Achieve deep spending cuts" does not tally with "create millions of jobs." This is a woman who is about spending cuts and protectionism in order to achieve economic growth. What creates growth? Government spending and trade! AD=G+C+I+(X-M) A fall in spending (G) and trade (X-M) means a fall in AD which means a reduction in economic output, not a restoration.

She is also pro-life and anti-gay marriage. A woman who wants a "limited government" which does very little except control what a woman does with her uterus and who is allowed to marry whom. When did reproduction and love become the concerns of the state anyway? The state must do everything Michele doesn't want it to do (economic regulation, economic stimulus, healthcare, social security) and nothing that she does want it to do (barriers to trade, shoving it's nose into private relationships).

The New Year

In his New Year message, the Prime Minister has said that 2012 will see the Olympics and the Queen's Jubilee help get the country "up to strength." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16378577)

Unfortunately for the PM, this is a gamble and an untruth. The untruth first: The Jubilee may well be a lot of fun and all that, but with an extra bank holiday it will economically do more harm than good. I don't think there should be an extra bank holiday for it. Last year the excuse given for a dismal second quarter was the extra bank holiday, so the same PM making a statement now saying that doing the same thing (day off to watch a very lovely lady in a very nice hat) this year will help the economy when it hindered it last year is amnesic at best.

The gamble is of course the Olympics. Quite possibly, we'll get a massive economic boost from it like Barcelona and Atlanta did. More probable I fear is that we will end up like Athens in 2004. We are, like they were, a country with fewer resources to throw at the event and a worse infrastructure to cope with it than many others. We have already had most of the benefit to the economy from the spend on construction and it didn't manage to stop the utter collapse of the construction industry in this country over the last few years. The regeneration of poorer areas on London didn't manage to stop the riots so I don't suppose we can call that a complete success either. All we can hope for now is a load of tourism off the back of the games. The hope is that millions of people will watch a congested, smoggy city fail to cope with the strain and thus decide that it would be a nice place to come on holiday. I hope I'm proven incorrect - look at Greece now.